McConaughey Trademark Move Isn’t ‘Alright’ for Keeping AI at Bay

Matthew McConaughey registering, well, himself as a trademark is a novel maneuver to counter the threat of AI knock-offs—albeit probably a futile one.

Since August, McConaughey’s J.K. Livin Brands Inc. registered eight trademarks that consist of him saying one of two iconic lines from his 1993 breakout role in “Dazed and Confused.” The goal? Counter a threat unimaginable in the film’s 1976 setting: unlicensed use of AI-generated McConaugheys in ways that current IP law may not cover.

It’s clever, fitting the classic IP attorney approach of digging clients the widest possible protective moats. The actor’s attorney, Jonathan Pollack, says it’s a natural extension because trademarks are meant to “protect consumers from knockoffs—which is what AI is.” But, he acknowledges, “it’s not perfect.”

It’s already illegal to use McConaughey’s persona or trademarks to sell products without his permission. And there’s a core problem with the strategy: trademark and right-of-publicity laws don’t directly address the makeup of the targeted product itself, AI content featuring his unlicensed digital clone.

Basically, McConaughey stuffed his publicity rights into a trademark box—and is trying to extend its reach beyond the legal purpose of either.

University of Minnesota law professor William McGeveran called it “the wrong tool” to deal with “a real problem.”

“When you start using trademarks in this way, you have all kinds of rules that just don’t fit,” he said. “They’re meant for product-identifiers, not for people.”

The registrations consist of video and audio recordings of McConaughey delivering iterations of his “alright alright alright” and “just keep livin’” lines. They cover acting performances and downloadable audio-visual content. The idea is that mimickry of McConaughey would be similar enough to the core of the mark—his dynamic persona—to confuse consumers, regardless of the particular words the AI-version says.

The catch: the way an accused infringer uses a mark matters, and trademark law generally can’t address use that doesn’t serve as a source identifier.

A New York federal court last July scrapped voice actors’ trademark and copyright claims against AI voice-over company Lovo Inc. It said “even extremely famous celebrities” can’t use trademark claims “based on the use of their likeness as products rather than as source-identifying marks.”

It cited past cases where courts have refused to let a trademark cover an entire persona or inhibit others’ nontrademark use. One appellate ruling deemed photos of Babe Ruth in a baseball calendar part of the product’s content—not an indication of who made it.

Pollack, of-counsel at Yorn Levine, said the Lovo opinion left an opening by acknowledging “plaintiffs’ voices may be protectable” when used “primarily to identify the source of particular sound recordings.” The actors didn’t register trademarks, denying them the legal presumptions of validity created by McConaughey’s registrations, he noted.

“If you say that voice is no longer acting as just a voice but as a source-indicator, you get around the reasoning in the case,” he said.

But it may be hard to show use of AI McConaughey in AI content “primarily” serves to identify the content’s source, putting nonpromotional use of the digital doppelganger beyond the trademarks’ reach. And with reason: the Lovo decision notes a trademark blanketing an entire persona could let actors block the careers of anyone who could be confused for them.

So where does that leave McConaughey? Give his attorneys credit for a tactic that could at least open federal courthouse doors a bit wider, create a presumption of trademark validity, and beef up cease-and-desist letters. But aside from putting additional onus on celebrities to fight AI, it might mostly miss the target, leaving patchwork state laws that could fare no better—though a few states have begun adding specific AI-deepfake guardrails.

Congress could most cleanly address this with a federal right-of-publicity law spelling out AI boundaries to prevent exploitation while safeguarding free speech.

Justifiably, no one watching Capitol Hill is holding their breath. Until that changes, it’s possible another McConaughey character—"Wolf of Wall Street” stockbroker Mark Hanna—best captures the notion of a trademark or publicity-rights law directly barring deepfakes: “Fugazi.”

“Fairy dust. It doesn’t exist. It’s never landed. It is no matter. It’s not on the elemental chart.”